Activity

  • R. L. S. posted an update 4 years, 8 months ago


    Here’s the thing. Research is a learned skill; it is hard, it is nuanced and complex, and it is true that the majority of people would not even know where to begin or even HOW to do [their own] research.
    Research is NOT:
    Googling, scrolling your FB newsfeed, or watching YouTube or 4Chan 😖 to search for the results you are hoping to find to be “true.” These are called confirmation biases, and are quickly and easily ruled out when doing actual research.
    A post credited to Linda Gamble Spadaro, a licensed mental health counselor in Florida, sums this up quite well:
    “Please stop saying you researched it.
    You didn’t research anything and it is highly probable you don’t know how to do so.
    Did you compile a literature review and write abstracts on each article? Or better yet, did you collect a random sample of sources and perform independent probability statistics on the reported results? No?
    Did you at least take each article one by one and look into the source (that would be the author, publisher and funder), then critique the writing for logical fallacies, cognitive distortions and plain inaccuracies?
    Did you ask yourself why this source might publish these particular results? Did you follow the trail of references and apply the same source of scrutiny to them?
    No? Then you didn’t…research anything. You read or watched a video, most likely with little or no objectivity. You came across something in your algorithm manipulated feed, something that jived with your implicit biases and served your confirmation bias, and subconsciously applied your emotional filters and called it proof.”
    This doesn’t even go into institutional review boards (IRB’s), also known as independent ethics committees, ethical review boards, or touch on peer-review, or meta-analyses.
    To sum it up, a healthy dose of skepticism is/can be a good thing…as long as we are also applying it to those things we wish/think to be true, and not just those things we choose to be skeptical towards, or in denial of.
    Most importantly, though, is to apply our best critical thinking skills to ensure we are doing our best to suss out the facts from the fiction, the myths, and outright BS in pseudoscience and politics.
    Misinformation is being used as a tool of war and to undermine our public health, and it is up to each of us to fight against it.

    • Reminds me of an Andre Gide quote, “One does not discover new lands w/o consenting to lose sight of the shore for a very long time”.

      • If The Who, what, where, when and why is missing and not annotated, the piece being read is suspect.

          • You’re describing just about every( also peer-reviewed) “scientififiisistic” article, even journaled ones, these days…

          • REMOVE YOUR FACE MASK

            • I get the sentiment, truly, as I’m writing essay/research papers quite frequently these days, but this is also a bit hogwashian, imo. Review boards, peer reviews, “ethics” boards, etc., are all flawed themselves, especially peer review! And to say that reading (articles and books, I assume), YouTube, or even 4chan (which I know little about) doesn’t qualify as research, well, again, I get the sentiment, but there are still great books, articles, and plenty of highly educated/scholarly research being presented on YouTube and the like, that is, if one does their due diligence. After all, MLA/APA citation formatting is filled with internet type referencing, so someone scholarly must see a need for such citations without the fear of being thought of as a non-researcher because they are not constantly using JSTOR or the like. This mental health “expert” (which I assume she wants us to think of her as) also has a very pessimistic view of people’s thinking, which, again, I get the sentiment, but I also sense some serious bitterness in this ranting quotation. I certainly stand by her basic research rundown process, but this process does very little in the end. As bias still bleeds through so many “research papers” in the academy. Bias, bias, bias, if I only had a dime for each time a “researcher” used the word “bias”.

                • Two searing words, Due Diligence.

                  • Well said. The fact that it’s published in a peer-reviewed journal doesn’t automatically make it true (or false). The fact that it’s on the internet doesn’t automatically make it false (or true). IMO, it’s impossible to completely overcome one’s bias, and I believe everybody — including legitimate researchers — has one. I think the best anyone can do is make a good-faith effort to apply due diligence and critical thinking (as others have suggested), be aware of possible biases, and be willing to revise one’s opinion if new data comes along.

                  • The first book I was required to read in doctoral school was How To Lie With Statistics. The early destruction of my innocence … not!